PropertyProf Blog

Editor: Stephen Clowney
Univ. of Kentucky College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, October 10, 2008

Who Says You Can't Physically Partition a Single Family House?

CNN has a fascinating story about a Cambodian couple who cut their house in two when they divorced.  (More accurately, the husband cut the house in half and moved his part to land owned by his parents).  You MUST click through to see the picture.

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

October 10, 2008 in Real Estate Transactions | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Even on Appropriability and Property

Yonatan Even (Columbia) has posted Appropriability and Property on SSRN.  Here's the abstract:

This paper challenges the malleability of the idea of property as a relative, indeterminate "bundle of rights", which appears to dominate property doctrine at least since Ronald Coase's "The Problem of Social Cost". Focusing on the core goals of property regimes, the paper proposes an alternative view of property rights - one that is centered on the ability of owners to appropriate the benefits of their assets in the face of a threat from numerous potential adversaries, rather than their ability to contract such assets away within a bilateral context. The paper demonstrates how the shift to a multilateral, appropriability-based analysis allows for a fuller account of what must be the "core" or "baseline" of property rights. Using this account, the paper offers an evaluation of the relationship between such "core" rights and other types of rights traditionally associated with property doctrine, such as rights that have historically been granted to owners under the guise of property rights, contractual rights vis-a-vis third parties and constitutional rights against the public at large.

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

October 10, 2008 in Property Theory, Recent Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

RLUIPA Podcasts

Over at Law of the Land, Patty Salkin has links to the podcasts of what looks to have been an outstanding symposium on RLUPIA.

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

October 8, 2008 in Land Use | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Takings for Private Use in India

NPR has an interesting story about controversy surrounding the building of an auto factory in India.

Thanks to Eduardo Penalver for the tip.

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

October 7, 2008 in Takings | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 6, 2008

A Haunted House and a Rescission?

Because I know how much Ben loves Stambovsky, I thought I'd post a link to Fox News' discussion of whether some buyers can rescind their purchase of a "haunted house," Clifton Hall.   By the way, I don't think this has anything to do with the implied warranty of habitability.  I think the defect is patent.

Alfred Brophy 

October 6, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Teaching With Popper's Bordering on Madness

Popper_book Carolina Academic Press is issuing a second edition of Andrew F. Popper's novel Bordering on Madness:  An American Land Use Tale:

Bordering on Madness is a novel about a battle between a university and a community over proposed construction of a new campus facility. As the land use fight ripens, the homeowners and university become combatants. The opposition becomes the enemy, depersonalized and reprehensible.

From a teaching perspective, the novel allows for discussion of conventional and unconventional land use strategies as well as the development of a number of issues: When does one person have the right to control the lawful use of property owned by another? When does aggressive advocacy become unethical, unacceptable misconduct? What is the role of government when it comes to disputes between those opposed to development and those seeking approval of a proposed project? What are the best ways to handle the anger and frustration of individuals threatened by what they perceive as destructive change?

At the same time, CAP is publishing a companion casebook, co-authored by Popper and land-use experts Patty Salkin David Avitable:

Professor Andrew F. Popper’s new innovative casebook A Companion to Bordering on Madness: An American Land Use Tale delves into the legal, political, and strategic issues raised in his recent novel, Bordering on Madness, a tale about a university and a community who go to war over a building proposal.

Using the plot of the novel as a starting point, the Companion provides commentary as well as numerous edited cases and articles to discuss the conflict between those who seek to develop land and those who oppose that development.

“The notion of using fiction as a building block to teach a field is fairly common – but the idea of a casebook that addresses in depth the areas raised in a full-length novel is unique,” said Popper. “The novel touches on cutting-edge legal issues that could not be explored adequately. The Companion provides a wonderful opportunity to set out those issues and strategic challenges and explore the pertinent judicial decisions and scholarship in the field, something that cannot – and should not – be done with fiction.”

The story in the novel is a familiar one in higher education and many other fields. Battles between local residents and universities or other institutions are legendary and the novel and Companion build on one of those legends: the complex dispute some years ago between American University Washington College of Law and some of the surrounding residential communities over the construction of a new law school building.

“At any one time, throughout the United States, there are thousands of battles of this type,” Popper said. “Universities, hospitals, churches, commercial developers and even homeowners who want to put an addition onto their homes find quickly that owning land does not mean necessarily having the right to use land – even when those uses are perfectly consistent with the laws and regulations applicable to the subject property.”

Looks like a very innovative way of presenting these issues!

Ben Barros

[Comments are held for approval, so there will be some delay in posting]

October 6, 2008 in Books, Land Use, Recent Scholarship, Teaching | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)